Does anyone else remember Ezio's ending in AC2? How we were completely sideswiped by this whole new thing about the first civ. and temples, and all this other stuff. And then we hear Desmond's classic line "What the [edit]" but then he gets up, Lucy throws him the hidden the blade, which I have no problem with, and he runs to fight off templars...with batons. Really? Batons? Could they have set it up anymore cheesily? I mean seriously, your going to charge into an Assassin's hideout, where you know they have experience with blades, and no one decides to take a lethal item..say a gun?

I feel like Ubisoft just kinda took the easy way out here, they wanted to show Desmond could actually do something.. and that he can only counter swords, and it would be insane for them to use swords, they use the next worse thing. Batons. Very cheesy to me, what did the Templars expect to do here.

And to prove this is even more messed up, does anyone remember in AC1 when the Assassin's tried to get Desmond out? There was gunshots, ones you could cleary hear. Whether it was the Templars or Assassins.
http://youtu.be/RIDDwQTjmqc
Can you hear it? Yeah.

So In the end, I think Ubisoft just crapped out on Desmond ending in AC2. They couldn't think of anything else..which to me is sad. They could've left out the whole him fighting part honestly. Just sayin!

Animuses

08-19-2011, 11:39 PM

They needed Desmond... ALIVE!

Jexx21

08-19-2011, 11:47 PM

Originally posted by Animuses:
They needed Desmond... ALIVE!

Exactly, they needed to have Desmond alive. The Templars aren't gonna go in guns a 'blazin if they need someone NOT dead.

kriegerdesgottes

08-19-2011, 11:59 PM

lol It's funny that you mention this because I was trying to justify it for myself the other day and the reason I came up with is that Abstergo is a templar agency disguised as a pharmaceutical company and most pharmacists don't carry guns. I guess if they had security the guards might so it's not a full proof theory but it's all I could come up with.

LH 517704 46137

08-20-2011, 12:27 AM

As much as i love the Assassin's, the Templars (with their almost infinite resources) couldn't have used tazers, smokebombs, flash grenades, set up roadblocks, used a tracker on the van to follow them. ect...?

Calvarok

08-20-2011, 12:33 AM

They thought they were going for the same guy who escaped. not a guy with 30 years of assassin experience taught to him in weeks. So yes, the brought batons, which can be lethal if used properly. And they got their act to together just as the assassins went undercover in Monteriggioni. I know it's all a bit convenient, but Ubisoft didn't really have any other resources to show to the player that Desmond was indeed skilled now.

Mikatsuki95

08-20-2011, 01:17 AM

I'm assuming you're a fan of getting shot at right op?

CRUDFACE

08-20-2011, 01:54 AM

Posting a few times before I leave for a while, lol

Originally posted by Calvarok:
They thought they were going for the same guy who escaped. not a guy with 30 years of assassin experience taught to him in weeks. So yes, the brought batons, which can be lethal if used properly. And they got their act to together just as the assassins went undercover in Monteriggioni. I know it's all a bit convenient, but Ubisoft didn't really have any other resources to show to the player that Desmond was indeed skilled now.

For a way to show Desmond's new lethal techniques:
-Free run around the warehouse taking people down.
-Have it so Lucy distracts some with her talking to Vidic while Desmond sneaks around
-Have it so they were outside and Desmond picked off a couple, one by one in the city they were in...if it was a city at all

For the thing with the soldiers:
-lol, tbh, you already know that only having batons was sad, since the enemies in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth century had better stuff than that. Even in taking in what kind of company they were as stated in another post, the kind of organization they are far outweighs that

kriegerdesgottes

08-20-2011, 03:04 AM

Yeah I don't think there is any good way of explaining this. They knew Desmond wouldn't realistically be able to take on a bunch of guards with assault rifles when all he has is a hidden blade which seems to get somehow downgraded between ACII and ACB.

Altair661

08-20-2011, 09:54 AM

Originally posted by Animuses:
They needed Desmond... ALIVE!

I understand this! But still! I wouldnt mind if they brought like tasers, or even the riot guns cops use sometimes. They dont have to be automatic, they can even show the "line of the gun" like they did in ACB. You fight guys with crossbows and guns. Well renaissance guns i guess but still. With all Ubisoft has done, i'm pretty sure with there two development they could've come up with something a bit more realistic. I love the games, dont get me wrong. But it was kinda dissapointing. I mean IF we play as Desmond in AC3, or whenever we play as Desmond in real time, are all the templars going to be running around with batons? I know it's Assassins Creed, but if its 2012, it's not gonna be very realistic if NOBODY uses a gun.

Altair661

08-20-2011, 09:56 AM

Originally posted by kriegerdesgotte:
lol It's funny that you mention this because I was trying to justify it for myself the other day and the reason I came up with is that Abstergo is a templar agency disguised as a pharmaceutical company and most pharmacists don't carry guns. I guess if they had security the guards might so it's not a full proof theory but it's all I could come up with.

I suppose, but the security guards had assault rifles in AC1, and they were using them.

Blind2Society

08-20-2011, 11:59 AM

I think they will add guns when they need to. Probably is AC3. I imagine it will become a very different game when they do. Something more like Splinter Cell maybe. Though we would be sneaking around with a hidden blade.

Then again, Abstergo is training it's employees in the techniques of the assassins so the people we end up fighting may not use guns. I don't really know. Though the baton scene gives me slight doubts, I think Ubi will do it right (however that is).

However it works out we could get a glimpse of what's to come when we get out of the animus at the end of ACR. They've kept us in the dark as to the world outside the walls up till now. I hope that will change at least a bit this time round.

SpyderNynja

08-20-2011, 12:48 PM

The only thing that ever bothered me about the end of AC2 was that Desmond had an exact replica of Ezio's hidden blade. It looked so out of place on his arm in the modern setting, like Desmond was cosplaying Ezio.

kriegerdesgottes

08-20-2011, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by swiftslasher7:
The only thing that ever bothered me about the end of AC2 was that Desmond had an exact replica of Ezio's hidden blade. It looked so out of place on his arm in the modern setting, like Desmond was cosplaying Ezio.

Yeah that bothered me too and then to make it worse they took it away in ACB and gave him a kind of crappy one as if he had never had the other one. I really don't like how they constantly change his appearance and outfits without ever explaining where he got it. I guess they do eat and sleep off camera but in ACII he ends up in the back of that van at the end of the game then when they get to Monterrigionni he has a totally different hoodie on.

itsamea-mario

08-20-2011, 01:00 PM

They already have guns in the game.

Markie577

08-20-2011, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by kriegerdesgotte:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by swiftslasher7:
The only thing that ever bothered me about the end of AC2 was that Desmond had an exact replica of Ezio's hidden blade. It looked so out of place on his arm in the modern setting, like Desmond was cosplaying Ezio.

Yeah that bothered me too and then to make it worse they took it away in ACB and gave him a kind of crappy one as if he had never had the other one. I really don't like how they constantly change his appearance and outfits without ever explaining where he got it. I guess they do eat and sleep off camera but in ACII he ends up in the back of that van at the end of the game then when they get to Monterrigionni he has a totally different hoodie on. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's somewhat explained if you use a little bit of imagination, at the end of AC2 they said they were heading towards a cabin in the mountains(probably somewhere in the alps) but at the beginning of ACB they where arriving at Monterrigionni. They explained this due to the borders being closed down(abstergo has a hold over the EU?) So if we take a 1-2 days gap between Ac2 and ACB they had enough time to buy a new hoodie and adjust the hidden blade so it sticks out less than the Renaissance one.

Blind2Society

08-20-2011, 01:04 PM

@ Mario: That post is borderline trolling

Animuses

08-20-2011, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by Altair661:

I understand this! But still! I wouldnt mind if they brought like tasers, or even the riot guns cops use sometimes. They dont have to be automatic, they can even show the "line of the gun" like they did in ACB.
Why would they create new weapons for the credits? It makes more sense to make them use batons, which work like warhammers and maces.

I don't know why anyone would complain, it was such a climatic moment. Best way to end the game.

Blind2Society

08-20-2011, 01:13 PM

But it does seem somewhat out of place. I mean Vidic must have know Desmond would be more than a match for a few guys with batons. He knows about the bleeding affect and he must have known the memory core was stolen. I don't know, it's not a big deal but I think it's worth a mention.

I understand this! But still! I wouldnt mind if they brought like tasers, or even the riot guns cops use sometimes. They dont have to be automatic, they can even show the "line of the gun" like they did in ACB.
Why would they create new weapons for the credits? It makes more sense to make them use batons, which work like warhammers and maces.

I don't know why anyone would complain, it was such a climatic moment. Best way to end the game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yeah, I loved that. I also took the liberty of stealing one of the batons and beating them up with it.

Animuses

08-20-2011, 01:19 PM

"Uh oh Doc, looks like it's just you and me now."

If you have a problem with the credits, then think of that line Desmond said, it'll get rid of your worries or curiosity.

ShaneO7K

08-20-2011, 01:21 PM

Originally posted by Blind2Society:
But it does seem somewhat out of place. I mean Vidic must have know Desmond would be more than a match for a few guys with batons. He knows about the bleeding affect and he must have known the memory core was stolen. I don't know, it's not a big deal but I think it's worth a mention.

I don't think he was expecting Desmonds huge overhaul from being useless in a fight to being one of the best around.

Becuase Lucy was so against Desmond staying in the animus too long in AC1 because of the bleeding effect and then in AC2 it was the complete opposite just for what the bleeding effect could do.

Animuses

08-20-2011, 01:30 PM

@dead_gunner187
You nailed it.

Blind2Society

08-20-2011, 01:35 PM

Seems a little far fetched but you could be right.

ShaneO7K

08-20-2011, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by Blind2Society:
Seems a little far fetched but you could be right.

I see what you mean, for all Vidic knew that place could've been swarming with experienced assassin's. But at the end of the day it was a great way to end AC2.

Blind2Society

08-20-2011, 01:40 PM

True. What Ubisoft did was take some creative liberties.

Altair661

08-20-2011, 02:01 PM

I could understand why they did it, and I wasnt expecting them to add this whole new system just for the last 5 minutes of the game. I just think it could've been a bit better, or realistic. At least to me. It didnt ruin the game or anything, but if they are running around with batons in another AC game, there's really no excuse for it.

What I think could've happened was Desmond could go up take out some unsuspecting people to show he can actually do something. Vidic busts in with more people and they start shooting at Desmond and he just runs to the van. May not be as epic. Just a thought.

I will agree with you taht the modern day gameplay parts of aC2 were a bit embarrassing. I think they were created by an entirely different team, which would explain why they were so underdeveloped. AC3 is probably going to have an extensive animus AND real life team. I really think it's going to be even more like two games in on than Revelations.

dchil279

08-20-2011, 03:12 PM

Originally posted by Animuses:
They needed Desmond... ALIVE!

you ever heard of tazers?

what they should have done is have a few guys with guns and then desmond stealth assassinates them, that way it's realistic w/o having to get in a gunfight.

what they should have done is have a few guys with guns and then desmond stealth assassinates them, that way it's realistic w/o having to get in a gunfight. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
What you said would've been good for a normal combat sequence, but this was for the credits and it served its purpose well even though it didn't make the most sense compared ther other things that could've happened.

LightRey

08-20-2011, 06:40 PM

They didn't even expect Desmond to be there. Vidic said it was a "pleasant surprise" as I recall.

dchil279

08-21-2011, 09:32 AM

Originally posted by LightRey:
They didn't even expect Desmond to be there. Vidic said it was a "pleasant surprise" as I recall.
They would still have guns... plus Vidic was talking in an extremely sarcastic voice.

RzaRecta357

08-21-2011, 09:41 AM

How old are you kids? First off, you can buy Batons in some places today and they are illegal to carry around because you could kill a man with 2 or 3 hits from one to the head.

2 or three hits. You could probably crack a skull with one good one. Who needs to carry a sword? A baton is the size of a lighter or a bit bigger until you extend it. Saving tons of space on the person and being fast.

Go watch The Town or something and you'll see one used on a movie at least.

They didn't have guns or tasers because then they would just shoot Desmond,and he would be dead or captured. Game over.

At that moment you're supposed to be feeling the excitement of Desmond actually getting to kill and not worry about it.

Now when the third game comes out and we have in between animus -- Desmond sessions where he runs around with a fold out sniper rifle on his back and a super hidden gun built into his wrist device you'll complain too.

NuclearFuss

08-21-2011, 09:46 AM

Im just curious as to why the Assassins have that base anyway. If the Animus works in the van why didnt they keep driving around until Desmond was done?

dchil279

08-21-2011, 09:48 AM

Originally posted by RzaRecta357:
How old are you kids? First off, you can buy Batons in some places today and they are illegal to carry around because you could kill a man with 2 or 3 hits from one to the head.

2 or three hits. You could probably crack a skull with one good one. Who needs to carry a sword? A baton is the size of a lighter or a bit bigger until you extend it. Saving tons of space on the person and being fast.

Go watch The Town or something and you'll see one used on a movie at least.

They didn't have guns or tasers because then they would just shoot Desmond,and he would be dead or captured. Game over.

At that moment you're supposed to be feeling the excitement of Desmond actually getting to kill and not worry about it.

My point is that they could have had the enemies carrying guns but instead of Desmond confronting them they could have created a stealth mission where desmond has to pick them off 1 by 1. It would have felt much more realistic.

itsamea-mario

08-21-2011, 10:00 AM

Originally posted by sackboy411:
Im just curious as to why the Assassins have that base anyway. If the Animus works in the van why didnt they keep driving around until Desmond was done?

I imagine it takes a helluvalot of energy to power the animus, they probably couldn't have it in the van long before the battery or whatever other power supply theyre using, runs out of juice.

RzaRecta357

08-21-2011, 10:01 AM

Originally posted by dchil279:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RzaRecta357:
How old are you kids? First off, you can buy Batons in some places today and they are illegal to carry around because you could kill a man with 2 or 3 hits from one to the head.

2 or three hits. You could probably crack a skull with one good one. Who needs to carry a sword? A baton is the size of a lighter or a bit bigger until you extend it. Saving tons of space on the person and being fast.

Go watch The Town or something and you'll see one used on a movie at least.

They didn't have guns or tasers because then they would just shoot Desmond,and he would be dead or captured. Game over.

At that moment you're supposed to be feeling the excitement of Desmond actually getting to kill and not worry about it.

My point is that they could have had the enemies carrying guns but instead of Desmond confronting them they could have created a stealth mission where desmond has to pick them off 1 by 1. It would have felt much more realistic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're right it would of been cool. But they just wanted to show off him murdering with one blade since by then you're used to seeing two blade kills all the time.

Also, was that a special built warehouse that blocked the cellphone towers? I guess so even though they never mention it.

Seems like alot of work for a place only 4 people stay at as a hiding spot.

twenty_glyphs

09-18-2011, 11:30 PM

Originally posted by itsamea-mario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by sackboy411:
Im just curious as to why the Assassins have that base anyway. If the Animus works in the van why didnt they keep driving around until Desmond was done?

I imagine it takes a helluvalot of energy to power the animus, they probably couldn't have it in the van long before the battery or whatever other power supply theyre using, runs out of juice. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is kind of a glossed-over story point that's only used when it's convenient. I still laugh at the fact that at the end of Brotherhood, the power goes out and Rebecca is all like, "Now we can't search Ezio's memories for the password." Yet they're just about to hop in the van, in which Desmond was just using the Animus before they got to Monterrigioni!

But the reason I'm posting is that I just beat AC2 again, and during the fight in the warehouse Vidic actually says "Careful, I want them both alive." It's easy to miss if you don't have the subtitles on. I know we've all assumed that was the case, but I didn't remember anyone referencing the fact that Vidic actually said it himself. It's also interesting that he does still want Lucy alive, which I guess makes more sense than wanting Desmond after the way he acted in AC1 about killing Desmond. I agree it definitely would have been more realistic to just bring guns and point them at Desmond and Lucy and say, "Come with us or die," but I didn't think the batons were that bad for that one scene. I thought the uniforms the security guards were wearing were much more laughable!

Has anyone noticed that when Desmond is talking to Vidic while he's standing in the back of the truck, Lucy and Shaun kind of look at Desmond and then each other in a strange way? It could be a look of worry about what's going to happen, but it is a strange look. Almost like, "Who's he talking to?" And then Rebecca runs by with a box of stuff and tells Desmond they have to go as if Vidic isn't even there. Then after the screen goes black, the first thing Shaun says is, "There you are, Desmond! Get in the truck!" That dialog sounds like Desmond wasn't just standing right there with Shaun and Lucy like we saw. I'm wondering if Desmond was actually hallucinating or seeing some form of the bleeding effect visions during this part. I can't piece that together in a way that makes sense, so maybe I'm just being paranoid. But something about that last part does seem strange.

acjake

09-18-2011, 11:52 PM

@twentyglyphs

Wow I never thought of it like that. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

LightRey

09-19-2011, 12:08 AM

Originally posted by twenty_glyphs:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by itsamea-mario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by sackboy411:
Im just curious as to why the Assassins have that base anyway. If the Animus works in the van why didnt they keep driving around until Desmond was done?

I imagine it takes a helluvalot of energy to power the animus, they probably couldn't have it in the van long before the battery or whatever other power supply theyre using, runs out of juice. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is kind of a glossed-over story point that's only used when it's convenient. I still laugh at the fact that at the end of Brotherhood, the power goes out and Rebecca is all like, "Now we can't search Ezio's memories for the password." Yet they're just about to hop in the van, in which Desmond was just using the Animus before they got to Monterrigioni!

But the reason I'm posting is that I just beat AC2 again, and during the fight in the warehouse Vidic actually says "Careful, I want them both alive." It's easy to miss if you don't have the subtitles on. I know we've all assumed that was the case, but I didn't remember anyone referencing the fact that Vidic actually said it himself. It's also interesting that he does still want Lucy alive, which I guess makes more sense than wanting Desmond after the way he acted in AC1 about killing Desmond. I agree it definitely would have been more realistic to just bring guns and point them at Desmond and Lucy and say, "Come with us or die," but I didn't think the batons were that bad for that one scene. I thought the uniforms the security guards were wearing were much more laughable!

Has anyone noticed that when Desmond is talking to Vidic while he's standing in the back of the truck, Lucy and Shaun kind of look at Desmond and then each other in a strange way? It could be a look of worry about what's going to happen, but it is a strange look. Almost like, "Who's he talking to?" And then Rebecca runs by with a box of stuff and tells Desmond they have to go as if Vidic isn't even there. Then after the screen goes black, the first thing Shaun says is, "There you are, Desmond! Get in the truck!" That dialog sounds like Desmond wasn't just standing right there with Shaun and Lucy like we saw. I'm wondering if Desmond was actually hallucinating or seeing some form of the bleeding effect visions during this part. I can't piece that together in a way that makes sense, so maybe I'm just being paranoid. But something about that last part does seem strange. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I dunno. I think you're reading a little too much into it.

bveUSbve

09-19-2011, 12:25 AM

Originally posted by Altair661:
I could understand why they did it, (...)
Yes, it's quite obvious why they put things like this. They wanted to save time and money.

I just think it could've been a bit better, or realistic. At least to me. It didnt ruin the game or anything, (...)
No, it didn't ruin the game. For me AC2 is still the best AC-game to date. But in my opinion the cheesiness of that scene seriously degrades the over-all impression of the game. Since this is the last scene we encounter, it matters all the more.

Perhaps this fight was added at the last moment - then I'd question if that was a good idea. Otherwise Ubisoft definitely SHOULD have created some more "believable" scenario.

(And it's quite amusing how many posters find excuses for Ubisoft even if their shortcomings are as obvious as in this case... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif)

Jexx21

09-19-2011, 04:19 AM

Yes, they're going to create an all new combat system for 5 minutes of game-play. Makes perfect sense.

No. That's not how game development works bud.

Anyway, I think twenty has a point with the Lucy-Shaun-Rebecca and Vidic thing.

itsamea-mario

09-19-2011, 04:37 AM

I think it's probably more a look of, 'so this is that vidic bastard we've heard so much about'.

CRUDFACE

09-19-2011, 05:42 AM

Originally posted by Jexx21:
Yes, they're going to create an all new combat system for 5 minutes of game-play. Makes perfect sense.

No. That's not how game development works bud.

Anyway, I think twenty has a point with the Lucy-Shaun-Rebecca and Vidic thing.

No, lol, but you'd expect them to come up with something more than sending sad unarmed goons at you. the strongest organization in the world and they can't even afford guns, grenades, or anything/anyone useful... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

bveUSbve

09-19-2011, 06:13 AM

Originally posted by Jexx21:
Yes, they're going to create an all new combat system for 5 minutes of game-play. Makes perfect sense.
It's a matter of "do it right or leave it".

In 'Brotherhood' they created "something" special for most of Leonardo's missions. That demonstrates it can be done and considered reasonable. And nobody forced Ubisoft to make the final scene of AC2 only 5 minutes (or less) of gameplay...

That's the point. They either should have let the game end without any fight against Abstergo's thugs. Or they should have done it "right" (probably too expensive). Or they should have done "something" different altogether - and that done "right".

LightRey

09-19-2011, 07:30 AM

Originally posted by itsamea-mario:
I think it's probably more a look of, 'so this is that vidic bastard we've heard so much about'.
I agree. Besides, it looks completely different from Desmond's "usual" hallucinations.

RzaRecta357

09-19-2011, 08:35 AM

Everyones thinking about it to hard. Sure it was kind of a cheese way of doing it even though they did want to catch him alive and bringing tasers that shoot kinda screw the gameplay.

You're still supposed to be coming off of the wow that is Ezios final moment. Then it's up and away hidden blade tossed at you.

You're supposed to feel shock of the final Ezio scene and then the awesome feeling of WOW I can finally kill with Desmond.

Did it not work the FIRST time you played it? It did for my friends and I.

Mutley_Rulz

09-19-2011, 09:15 AM

IMA FIRIN' MAH TAZERBEAMS!

Jexx21

09-19-2011, 10:14 AM

Originally posted by bveUSbve:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jexx21:
Yes, they're going to create an all new combat system for 5 minutes of game-play. Makes perfect sense.
It's a matter of "do it right or leave it".

In 'Brotherhood' they created "something" special for most of Leonardo's missions. That demonstrates it can be done and considered reasonable. And nobody forced Ubisoft to make the final scene of AC2 only 5 minutes (or less) of gameplay...

That's the point. They either should have let the game end without any fight against Abstergo's thugs. Or they should have done it "right" (probably too expensive). Or they should have done "something" different altogether - and that done "right". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The general combat system was the same for each of the Leonardo missions, and those lasted 2 hours at least. That's worth it.

But for a credit scene, it doesn't matter. You expect too much of a game developer. Sure, they can do it, but why would you waste resources like that?

If they did what you want, they may of had to take out something from the main game.

bveUSbve

09-20-2011, 12:26 AM

Originally posted by Jexx21:
The general combat system was the same for each of the Leonardo missions, and those lasted 2 hours at least. That's worth it.
I do NOT mean Ubisoft should have created any significant additions to the "general" combat system. Where have you taken this from?

I'm referring to the Leonardo missions just to point out what generally can be done gameplay-wise, even if a mechanic is used "just once". It's up to the developers to decide how a certain plot-element is presented in the game. This may or may not include "special" mechanics. And sometimes it even may be necessary to re-write a plot because it's realisation in-game is considered too complex/costly.

But for a credit scene, it doesn't matter. You expect too much of a game developer. Sure, they can do it, but why would you waste resources like that?
For me and many others it does matter. Now, who can claim that his point of view is the only valid one?

I suppose Ubisoft themselves knew very well that this scene was "weak" in terms of the fighting. They too decided it was "worth" putting in the game, despite of it's weakness. But I and others disagree. We think if they couldn't come up with something more plausible than "batons" (because of not enough time/money/good ideas.., whatever) it would have been better to leave the scene out completely.

If they did what you want, they may of had to take out something from the main game.
See above. And I still believe that it would have been possible to implement "some" scene serving the purpose in question in a less dubious manner. And that this not necessarily would have led to significantly higher production costs. (See above..)

LightRey

09-20-2011, 12:37 AM

Originally posted by bveUSbve:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jexx21:
The general combat system was the same for each of the Leonardo missions, and those lasted 2 hours at least. That's worth it.
I do NOT mean Ubisoft should have created any significant additions to the "general" combat system. Where have you taken this from?

I'm referring to the Leonardo missions just to point out what generally can be done gameplay-wise, even if a mechanic is used "just once". It's up to the developers to decide how a certain plot-element is presented in the game. This may or may not include "special" mechanics. And sometimes it even may be necessary to re-write a plot because it's realisation in-game is considered too complex/costly.

But for a credit scene, it doesn't matter. You expect too much of a game developer. Sure, they can do it, but why would you waste resources like that?
For me and many others it does matter. Now, who can claim that his point of view is the only valid one?

I suppose Ubisoft themselves knew very well that this scene was "weak" in terms of the fighting. They too decided it was "worth" putting in the game, despite of it's weakness. But I and others disagree. We think if they couldn't come up with something more plausible than "batons" (because of not enough time/money/good ideas.., whatever) it would have been better to leave the scene out completely.

If they did what you want, they may of had to take out something from the main game.
See above. And I still believe that it would have been possible to implement "some" scene serving the purpose in question in a less dubious manner. And that this not necessarily would have led to significantly higher production costs. (See above..) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
dude, get over yourself. It's just a game. I don't know why they came with just batons, but they did and there are an infinite number of possible viable explanations Ubisoft could come up with to explain it. I wouldn't be surprised if they already had from the start. Just because you don't see how it's realistic doesn't mean that Ubisoft overlooked something like that. They're not stupid.

CRUDFACE

09-20-2011, 02:05 AM

Originally posted by LightRey:

dude, get over yourself. It's just a game. I don't know why they came with just batons, but they did and there are an infinite number of possible viable explanations Ubisoft could come up with to explain it. I wouldn't be surprised if they already had from the start. Just because you don't see how it's realistic doesn't mean that Ubisoft overlooked something like that. They're not stupid.

It's not just about being a game. That reasoning is to loose and tbh that's akin to saying, "Shut up and deal with it." But as a consumer and a person who follows this story closely I expect them to do the same and at least put an effort into what they just throw into this monster made of money that Assassin's Creed is turning into. And it's not just him that see what's wrong with this. It's like you're giving them the right to just do whatever because it's theirs. But it doesn't work that way. They sell it to us.

And yeah, you're right about Ubisoft overlooking that part. They didn't overlook it, they just plainly tossed it in to show how cool or how strong Desmond has become. You can tell ebcause if they would've follwoed through with it, then Desmond wouldn't have just watched when Vidic slowly pull away.

Lol, there aren't an infinite number of amounts for why they came out with batons. Plain and simple, you can't counter a gun, grenades and such. The guards who attacked you in the hideout are just re-skinned guards from Ezio's time with modern versions of maces. They even use the same sound effects...

LightRey

09-20-2011, 03:00 AM

Originally posted by t260z:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by LightRey:
It's not just about being a game. That reasoning is to loose and tbh that's akin to saying, "Shut up and deal with it." But as a consumer and a person who follows this story closely I expect them to do the same and at least put an effort into what they just throw into this monster made of money that Assassin's Creed is turning into. And it's not just him that see what's wrong with this. It's like you're giving them the right to just do whatever because it's theirs. But it doesn't work that way. They sell it to us.

And yeah, you're right about Ubisoft overlooking that part. They didn't overlook it, they just plainly tossed it in to show how cool or how strong Desmond has become. You can tell ebcause if they would've follwoed through with it, then Desmond wouldn't have just watched when Vidic slowly pull away.

Lol, there aren't an infinite number of amounts for why they came out with batons. Plain and simple, you can't counter a gun, grenades and such. The guards who attacked you in the hideout are just re-skinned guards from Ezio's time with modern versions of maces. They even use the same sound effects...
You do realize that Ubisoft is providing us with a service, right? That means that saying things like this is basically like telling your waiter you don't like how he's dressed. Constructive criticism is fine, but this is a little ridiculous.

Also, I wasn't talking about an infinite number of things they could've come up with instead of using batons, I was talking about an infinite number of things they could've, and probably did come up with to explain why they used batons. As in, what excuse they have for them not using guns or tazers. There is literally an infinite amount of things they could come up with that would explain it.

CRUDFACE

09-20-2011, 05:21 AM

Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by t260z:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by LightRey:
It's not just about being a game. That reasoning is to loose and tbh that's akin to saying, "Shut up and deal with it." But as a consumer and a person who follows this story closely I expect them to do the same and at least put an effort into what they just throw into this monster made of money that Assassin's Creed is turning into. And it's not just him that see what's wrong with this. It's like you're giving them the right to just do whatever because it's theirs. But it doesn't work that way. They sell it to us.

And yeah, you're right about Ubisoft overlooking that part. They didn't overlook it, they just plainly tossed it in to show how cool or how strong Desmond has become. You can tell ebcause if they would've follwoed through with it, then Desmond wouldn't have just watched when Vidic slowly pull away.

Lol, there aren't an infinite number of amounts for why they came out with batons. Plain and simple, you can't counter a gun, grenades and such. The guards who attacked you in the hideout are just re-skinned guards from Ezio's time with modern versions of maces. They even use the same sound effects...
You do realize that Ubisoft is providing us with a service, right? That means that saying things like this is basically like telling your waiter you don't like how he's dressed. Constructive criticism is fine, but this is a little ridiculous.

Also, I wasn't talking about an infinite number of things they could've come up with instead of using batons, I was talking about an infinite number of things they could've, and probably did come up with to explain why they used batons. As in, what excuse they have for them not using guns or tazers. There is literally an infinite amount of things they could come up with that would explain it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I realize that, and you do realize that because of us that service can continue to be made and produced, right? It's like when you order a burger at a restaurant and the burger isn't how you ordered or does not reach the standards set by their previous examples. It's not ridiculous to make good reasoning as to why they did. Assassin's Creed is gonna be like Star Wars soon, lol, and expand so much it starts to lose track of itself.

You're abusing the word infinite. There aren't that many reasons that don't revolve around the reasoning of "Make Desmond Look cool," at the end of the game. Personally, the way ACB's ending did that and made sense compared to AC2's. And there's a difference between making up a "reason" and making up a "reason that makes sense".

bveUSbve

09-20-2011, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by LightRey:
dude, get over yourself. It's just a game.
I don't know the exact meaning of "get over yourself" (I'm german), but it doesn't sound nice... If you want to discuss, then change your tone. If you see no sense in further discussing this issue, that's fine - we both have different points of view and there is no need to change that. But I don't need your permission to explain my point of view to someone else. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

I don't know why they came with just batons, but they did and there are an infinite number of possible viable explanations Ubisoft could come up with to explain it.
Like t260z said: The reason why Ubisoft came up with batons is obvious. And as I said: Most likely they knew that those weren't "convincing" weapons in the situation. In fact, outside these (fanboy-)forums I haven't heard anyone claim the way this last scene in AC2 was depicted to be perfectly plausible; on the contrary, anyone with an opinion on this said it was ridiculous...

Now, what's it good for to point this out again and again? Well, I haven't participated in earlier discussion(s) about the issue. And generally one can hope that Ubisoft will take notice of such feedback - somehow -, so that in the future we will not have to see weak scenes like this one again (IF avoidable).

LightRey

09-20-2011, 09:08 AM

Originally posted by t260z:
Yes, I realize that, and you do realize that because of us that service can continue to be made and produced, right? It's like when you order a burger at a restaurant and the burger isn't how you ordered or does not reach the standards set by their previous examples. It's not ridiculous to make good reasoning as to why they did. Assassin's Creed is gonna be like Star Wars soon, lol, and expand so much it starts to lose track of itself.

You're abusing the word infinite. There aren't that many reasons that don't revolve around the reasoning of "Make Desmond Look cool," at the end of the game. Personally, the way ACB's ending did that and made sense compared to AC2's. And there's a difference between making up a "reason" and making up a "reason that makes sense".
Again, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with constructive criticism, but the fact of the matter is that this is neither truly something that would necessarily be unrealistic, for reasons I stated above and again below, but also because this isn't something that "ruins" the game to the extent that one would even think of not buying the next game(s).

I'm not abusing the word infinite. There's literally an infinite amount of possible ideas they could (have) come up with that would explain why they used batons. Just like there are an infinite amount of numbers between the number 1 and the number 2. It could vary from things like "there was a mixup and they forgot to bring the guns" to "aliens attacked Abstergo and stole all of their guns". As long as they can make it fit into the storyline (and, since they have complete creative freedom, they always can), anything is possible.

It's simple logic really. I think I could have my friend that's taking philosophy classes write it down to the axioms if you want.

bveUSbve

09-20-2011, 09:10 AM

Originally posted by LightRey:
You do realize that Ubisoft is providing us with a service, right?
And you do realize that in exchange for their "service" they want our money?

I don't know for sure what attitude towards customers higher ranking Ubisoft management entertain (in light of certain DRM-schemes (on PC)..), but surely they want us to continue buying AC-games. So it's not a generosity to make games that appeal to "us" but the essence of their business.

LightRey

09-20-2011, 09:17 AM

Originally posted by bveUSbve:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
You do realize that Ubisoft is providing us with a service, right?
And you do realize that in exchange for their "service" they want our money?

I don't know for sure what attitude towards customers higher ranking Ubisoft management entertain (in light of certain DRM-schemes (on PC)..), but surely they want us to continue buying AC-games. So it's not a generosity to make games that appeal to "us" but the essence of their business. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So, you're saying that, because of this little thing, you would like your, say, 60 bucks you paid for the game back?

EDIT: btw, "get over yourself" is by no means offensive. It basically means you need to stop complaining so much and calm down.

Sick_one12

09-20-2011, 10:07 AM

Actually im much more interested if its canon that Desmond killed any of these guards.Because if its canon i think it was quite an emotionless way of showing us desmonds first kill.i think for a sarcastic and kinda immature guy(in a positive way)like Desmond it would have been much more fitting if he had to struggle before attacking a guy with a blade that can kill him.Ubisoft should have made it a little bit more touching and shockinghttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gifDid anyone of you think about that too?http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Moultonborough

09-20-2011, 12:47 PM

What does it matter? They were trying to capture Desmond and Lucy. If you listen close enough you can hear Vidic say so. Ubisoft for the most part has avoided using modern weapons I am glad they did it this way instead of giving them guns and turning the end of the game into a FPS. Besides, it has one of the best video game lines of all time within it. I like the way they did it.

LightRey

09-20-2011, 12:55 PM

Originally posted by Sick_one12:
Actually im much more interested if its canon that Desmond killed any of these guards.Because if its canon i think it was quite an emotionless way of showing us desmonds first kill.i think for a sarcastic and kinda immature guy(in a positive way)like Desmond it would have been much more fitting if he had to struggle before attacking a guy with a blade that can kill him.Ubisoft should have made it a little bit more touching and shockinghttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gifDid anyone of you think about that too?http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Maybe, but the animus has made him experience killing already, so he'd likely already gone through the psychological struggles of having killed someone, before actually making his first kill.

Inorganic9_2

09-20-2011, 01:03 PM

^ this is highly likely. In fact, Desmond has gone through a lot of psychological trauma!

OGCFB

09-20-2011, 05:30 PM

Desmond may have killed someone before in his early years.

Jexx21

09-20-2011, 05:43 PM

Originally posted by OACFB:
Desmond may have killed someone before in his early years.

AC2:

Desmond: "But I never killed anyone!"
Shaun: "Really Desmond? What are you, the first vegan Assassin!..."

OGCFB

09-20-2011, 05:58 PM

Ok well that clears that up I think the AC series should end with Desmond going bat crap crazy and becoming the next villain.

bveUSbve

09-20-2011, 07:43 PM

Originally posted by LightRey:
So, you're saying that, because of this little thing, you would like your, say, 60 bucks you paid for the game back?
I didn't mean to say anything like that. It's silly "arguing" to interpret my posts that way. Get over yourself yourself. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

EDIT: btw, "get over yourself" is by no means offensive. It basically means you need to stop complaining so much and calm down.
OK, but I'm perfectly calm. I just take the liberty to object to those folks who so very keen find excuses for ANYTHING Ubisoft is doing in AC, even if a shortcoming is as obvious as the one discussed here (well, at least it seems quite obvious to me - and some others).

Again: It doesn't ruin the game, but it's a stupid scene nonetheless. And I'd rather they make "something" better next time or leave it out altogether.

Stowdace

09-20-2011, 07:54 PM

Hey, better batons than "invisible guns".

You'll win a free internet if you get the reference.

Moultonborough

09-20-2011, 08:20 PM

I just thought of something else. So far, as Desmond we cannot die unlike with Ezio or Altair. You can get hit by the batons obviously and not die with guns again obviously he can. Since this was just an epilogue and not a "memory" we can't die and keep playing.

masterfenix2009

09-20-2011, 10:27 PM

Originally posted by Stowdace:
Hey, better batons than "invisible guns".uo

You'll win a free internet if you get the reference. yu gi oh the abiged seies

Statman5

09-21-2011, 07:29 PM

Yeah. The Batons were stupid. Anyone who tries to justify the batons are just kidding themselves.

IF There were to be a Modern AC, there would HAVE to be guns. And there would HAVE to be a way of dealing with them.

It'll probably be a dramatic shift from the Running'n'Gunning... Er, Running'n'Stabbing gameplay from ACB. It'll have to be a more stealth oriented game.

Or they could give desmond a gun. I wouldn't mind sniping someone occasionally. Guns are quite useful at making people dead, and it would be a damn shame (as well as damn stupid) if the Assassins hadn't made them a key component in their arsenal by the year 2012.

Originally posted by Statman5:
Yeah. The Batons were stupid. Anyone who tries to justify the batons are just kidding themselves.

IF There were to be a Modern AC, there would HAVE to be guns. And there would HAVE to be a way of dealing with them.
Vidic wanted Desmond alive. Batons have been justified, end of story.

dxsxhxcx

09-21-2011, 10:15 PM

Originally posted by Animuses:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Statman5:
Yeah. The Batons were stupid. Anyone who tries to justify the batons are just kidding themselves.

IF There were to be a Modern AC, there would HAVE to be guns. And there would HAVE to be a way of dealing with them.
Vidic wanted Desmond alive. Batons have been justified, end of story. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

and they (templars) probably underestimated their enemies (assassins) thinking that it wouldn't be a problem for them to capture only 4 people...

RzaRecta357

09-22-2011, 09:09 AM

I'm copying and pasting what I said earlier. Because it's almost certainly why they did it and didn't expect people to go off like this.

Everyones thinking about it to hard. Sure it was kind of a cheese way of doing it even though they did want to catch him alive and bringing tasers that shoot kinda screw the gameplay.

You're still supposed to be coming off of the wow that is Ezios final moment. Then it's up and away hidden blade tossed at you.

You're supposed to feel shock of the final Ezio scene and then the awesome feeling of WOW I can finally kill with Desmond.

Did it not work the FIRST time you played it? It did for my friends and I.

Grandmaster_Z

09-22-2011, 01:25 PM

this is why present day AC does NOT work

Dieinthedark

09-23-2011, 04:35 PM

I've thought about this before as well. Desmond trains in the Animus to learn basically sword combat. But in 2012, why would we still be using swords and knives? It doesn't make any sense to me unless Desmond's going to use guns as melee weapons. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif And really? If they needed him alive, you've got tazers, flashbangs, shotgun w/bean bag rounds, anything really. BTW: Why do they need Desmond alive? They already found the treasure in AC1/ he completed that sequence. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

LightRey

09-23-2011, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by Dieinthedark:
I've thought about this before as well. Desmond trains in the Animus to learn basically sword combat. But in 2012, why would we still be using swords and knives? It doesn't make any sense to me unless Desmond's going to use guns as melee weapons. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif And really? If they needed him alive, you've got tazers, flashbangs, shotgun w/bean bag rounds, anything really. BTW: Why do they need Desmond alive? They already found the treasure in AC1/ he completed that sequence. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif
They probably need him alive for intel about the assassins and possibly because they might have become aware of the fact that he's related to Ezio, about whom they want to know more.

Dieinthedark

09-23-2011, 05:10 PM

Why would they need to know about Ezio? They found the treasure, they're still going on with their plan. Desmond is the only one who posses a threat so I don't think so. Not flaming just sayin...

LightRey

09-23-2011, 05:13 PM

Originally posted by Dieinthedark:
Why would they need to know about Ezio? They found the treasure, they're still going on with their plan. Desmond is the only one who posses a threat so I don't think so. Not flaming just sayin...
Because he was interesting. Not to mention he and his fellow Assassins at the time encountered quite a few PoE's. According to Lucy Vidic became obsessed with Renaissance Italy with S16.

Dieinthedark

09-23-2011, 05:14 PM

Ah yeah, I forgot about that. I wonder who S16's ancestor was? And why Vidic becomes interested? So many questions!

LightRey

09-23-2011, 05:17 PM

Originally posted by Dieinthedark:
Ah yeah, I forgot about that. I wonder who S16's ancestor was? And why Vidic becomes interested? So many questions!
Could be Ezio as well. It would seem likely since the Animus would've had a very easy job recognizing the similarities in their genetic memory. I'm pretty sure Vidic became interested because of all the crazy stuff that happened in the Renaissance.

Dieinthedark

09-23-2011, 05:18 PM

Never thought about it like that. S16 and Desmond being related, or @ least having Ezio as a common ancestor...